Please note: we have been online over ten years, and we want The Trek BBS to continue as a free site. But if you block our ads we are at risk.Please consider unblocking ads for this site - every ad you view counts and helps us pay for the bandwidth that you are using. Thank you for your understanding.

Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.

Certainly. He doesn't have longevity yet, but the talent is potentially stratospheric. Look at the four stages of his single character in AMERICAN HISTORY X. More chameleonic than Hanks, more sober than Burton, and less weepy than Penn.

Well, we disagree. Hanks isn't a cameleon at all (well except for Forrest Gump). He is more like a Cary Grant. Loads of charisma and likability with enough acting chops to win you over no matter the role. Sean Penn is a chameleon. He played both Spicolli AND Harvey Milk, to perfection, not to mention a myriad of other roles. You may not like the guy -- he gets on my nerves too sometimes, but he is an extroidinary acting talent.

I saw American History X and liked it a lot. In fact, I like Norton. I just don't think he should be ranked ahead of such accomplished actors (including Richard Burton). They are multiple Oscar nominees and winners.

I always felt Norton had "potential" to be great too, but so far, he has seemed to reach a plateau and that plateau isn't on Hanks, Burton, and Penn's levels. It makes me think that Norton has talent, just not enough to place him among the all time greats.

__________________
Duckman: I'll never forget the last thing my father said to me...
Cornfed: "Careful son, I don't think the safety's on"?
Duckman: BEFORE THAT!!!

Agreed. If we believe HOLLYWOODLAND, even Spencer Tracy had his bad points......

Let's not forget that Richard Burton himself had a high percentage of stinkers. Not all of them co-starred Elizabeth Taylor. But for me, his greatest role was playing with his wife: WHO'S AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOOLF? It still strikes me as insane how he could lose his Best Actor nomination for that, no matter who he ran against.

SHOOT 'EM UP is Owen's closest thing to a paycheck role. Even so, he brings more humor than most to it, partially due to his tired action monotone. In SIN CITY he's very much the badass. In CLOSER he tells Julia Roberts off in spectacular fashion, yet she still stays married to him. That's power. And if you haven't discovered INSIDE MAN yet, he's equally brilliant there. Another up-and-comer....

Samuel L. Jackson can be pigeonholed in films, or utterly wasted in George Lucas flicks, but he can often alternate between art-house and commercial features and perform commendably in both. 187, UNBREAKABLE and JUNGLE FEVER are among his best. Also TEAM AMERICA: WORLD POLICE.

Closer is a brilliant film, and he's probably the best thing in it, also the closest thing to a hero in the film (yes he's a bastard but of the four main characters he's the only honest one amongst them!) He's great in The Croupier as well.

There sure are a lot of white guys on that list. But, that's Hollywood.

I can't stand Burt Lancaster, really. He's in some good movies, but he's often the worst thing about them. Witness Gunfight at the O.K. Corral, a Western that nears brilliance only to have it dulled every time Lancaster's more conventional lead usurps the screen from Kirk Douglas.